Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine

On 4/27/25 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2025 2:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:

>

On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:

>

Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

>
>

Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't
understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking above your
knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with
some of the basic concepts of language theory.

>

He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.

>

As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.

>

   Quine argues that all attempts to define and
   understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
   the notion of analyticity should be rejected
   https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/

>

He is stupidly wrong a about this.

>
He was a leading academic at a prestigeous university.  It is vanishingly
unlike that he was "stupidly wrong".  It is far more likely that you have
failed to understand his message; that it is you who is stupidly wrong.
>

Analytic knowledge exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of
knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

>
An acyclic directed graph?  Highly implausible.  Any real system of
knowledge organised in a graph (if that is even possible) is going to
have cycles in it.  That's assuming "analytic knowledge" exists at all.
>

   Gödel agrees.
   *A type hierarchy is a knowledge tree acyclic graph*
   By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine
   which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
   interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided
   into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals,
   relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
 

Which needs to have a formal system of definitions, which was the sort of things Godel worked in, NOT a system just define by Natural Language.
Thus, we have a fundamental listing of the axioms and definitions of the system. (Which can't be changed without changing the system).

[ .... ]
>

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>